Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (71942)	7/1/2006 1:05:45 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 360941

Did Bush Commit War Crimes? ____________________________________________________________ By Rosa Brooks* The Los Angeles Times Friday 30 June 2006 Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld could expose officials to prosecution. The Supreme Court on Thursday dealt the Bush administration a stinging rebuke, declaring in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld that military commissions for trying terrorist suspects violate both U.S. military law and the Geneva Convention. But the real blockbuster in the Hamdan decision is the court's holding that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies to the conflict with Al Qaeda - a holding that makes high-ranking Bush administration officials potentially subject to prosecution under the federal War Crimes Act. The provisions of the Geneva Convention were intended to protect noncombatants - including prisoners - in times of armed conflict. But as the administration has repeatedly noted, most of these protections apply only to conflicts between states. Because Al Qaeda is not a state, the administration argued that the Geneva Convention didn't apply to the war on terror. These assertions gave the administration's arguments about the legal framework for fighting terrorism a through-the-looking-glass quality. On the one hand, the administration argued that the struggle against terrorism was a war, subject only to the law of war, not U.S. criminal or constitutional law. On the other hand, the administration said the Geneva Convention didn't apply to the war with Al Qaeda, which put the war on terror in an anything-goes legal limbo. This novel theory served as the administration's legal cover for a wide range of questionable tactics, ranging from the Guantanamo military tribunals to administration efforts to hold even U.S. citizens indefinitely without counsel, charge or trial. Perhaps most troubling, it allowed the administration to claim that detained terrorism suspects could be subjected to interrogation techniques that constitute torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment under international law, such as "waterboarding," placing prisoners in painful physical positions, sexual humiliation and extreme sleep deprivation. Under Bush administration logic, these tactics were not illegal under U.S. law because U.S. law was trumped by the law of war, and they weren't illegal under the law of war either, because Geneva Convention prohibitions on torture and cruel treatment were not applicable to the conflict with Al Qaeda. In 2005, Congress angered the administration by passing Sen. John McCain's amendment explicitly prohibiting the use of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees. But Congress did not attach criminal penalties to violations of the amendment, and the administration has repeatedly indicated its intent to ignore it. The Hamdan decision may change a few minds within the administration. Although the decision's practical effect on the military tribunals is unclear - the administration may be able to gain explicit congressional authorization for the tribunals, or it may be able to modify them to comply with the laws of war - the court's declaration that Common Article 3 applies to the war on terror is of enormous significance. Ultimately, it could pave the way for war crimes prosecutions of those responsible for abusing detainees. Common Article 3 forbids "cruel treatment and torture [and] outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." The provision's language is sweeping enough to prohibit many of the interrogation techniques approved by the Bush administration. That's why the administration had argued that Common Article 3 did not apply to the war on terror, even though legal experts have long concluded that it was intended to provide minimum rights guarantees for all conflicts not otherwise covered by the Geneva Convention. But here's where the rubber really hits the road. Under federal criminal law, anyone who "commits a war crime ... shall be fined ... or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death." And a war crime is defined as "any conduct ... which constitutes a violation of Common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva." In other words, with the Hamdan decision, U.S. officials found to be responsible for subjecting war on terror detainees to torture, cruel treatment or other "outrages upon personal dignity" could face prison or even the death penalty. Don't expect that to happen anytime soon, of course. For prosecutions to occur, some federal prosecutor would have to issue an indictment. And in the Justice Department of Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales - who famously called the Geneva Convention "quaint" - a genuine investigation into administration violations of the War Crimes Act just ain't gonna happen. But as Yale law professor Jack Balkin concludes, it's starting to look as if the Geneva Convention "is not so quaint after all." -------- *Rosa Brooks is a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law. Her experience includes service as a senior advisor at the US State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, as a consultant for the Open Society Institute and Human Rights Watch, as a board member of Amnesty International USA, and as a lecturer at Yale Law School.

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (71942)	7/1/2006 1:14:31 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 360941

Silver and Gold Cornucopia ______________________________________________________________ June 29, 2006 Jim Otis, a.k.a. The Optimist is an author, investor, and retired engineer. Thanksgiving already Although it is still several months until Thanksgiving, all of us can pause and be grateful for this wonderful opportunity to once again buy silver and gold at prices that are incredibly low. It was only weeks ago that many of our more bullish brothers thought we would never again see a buying opportunity like this. Now we hold that opportunity in our hands, and it is each investor’s decision about what to do with it. For this Optimist, the decision is easy. Almost all of my available capital is now invested in silver and gold on a fully paid basis. Since my positions have no leverage and no possibility of margin calls, I can simply sail through short term turbulence that would be caused by additional market price dips, and patiently wait for irresistible profit taking opportunities on a portion of my positions at much higher prices ahead. Who could have guessed it? The century old market adages of “buy low, sell high” and “the trend is your friend” really are good and worry free ways to prosper. Some pessimists are concerned about the possibility of a deflationary debt collapse. If the U.S. dollar increases substantially in purchasing power, that would be very bad for investments in silver and gold. The good news viewpoint from the Optimist, however, is that the Fed can (and will) print enough fiat paper to prevent the dollar from gaining purchasing power so there will be no deflation. Fortunately for investments in silver and gold, this time it really is different. Even as persistently rising inflation drags nominal rates higher, silver and gold will continue to prosper because real interest rates will remain steadily bullish for precious metals. Silver and gold look like a cornucopia At Thanksgiving, we are reminded of our good fortune by the icon of a cornucopia which begins small like a single seed planted in the spring, and which then spirals out into a horn of plenty with our bountiful harvests flowing out the large open end. The Optimist sees a similar cornucopia in the market action for silver and gold. Consider the silver and gold charts on the linked page. In 2001, the more than 20 year-long silver and gold bear market ended with small bullish seeds being planted. From that small beginning, we can see a spiraling cornucopia of rising prices in a repeated pattern of higher lows followed by much higher highs. The higher lows are here and now. This is the part of the cycle where we can practice our skills to buy low. Prices may, or may not, drop lower in the short term, but the Optimist can promise that short term opportunities will not last forever. As the calendar marches ceaselessly through the medium term and into the long term, investors of the future will look back with pride at the trophies they captured by action in this time frame, or they will sing remorseful songs about woulda, coulda, shoulda. How high is up? If history is a guide, we should soon see rising prices again. Then the incessant question will be how much higher will prices go? The Optimist’s possible price projection for 2007 seems like a reasonable guess, but the charts offer calculated numbers that are worth considering. By extending the line of highs from 2001 into the spring of 2007, we find that silver could trade above $17 and gold could be higher than $800. Those possible price targets on a logarithmic chart will increase exponentially with additional time to the new highs ahead. A bullish moderation Observant readers may point out that silver and gold highs cannot continue forever to rise at a faster rate than the rising lows. If the cornucopias drawn since 2001 could keep rising at the same pace, then highs would eventually be double the lows, or ten or even 100 times the ever increasing lows. That seems intuitively unlikely, so the Optimist anticipates that over time, the highs will increase at a somewhat reduced rate, and the lows will increase at a faster rate to moderate the ratio of highs divided by lows. The prospects for a faster rise in the low prices ahead provide even more incentives for capturing a large position of lows now, because these current low prices will look like great bargains in the years to come. Cheers! * * * Notice * * * This commentary presents only the viewpoints of the Optimist, and it is intended only for perspective and entertainment. Please do not interpret any portion of this work as investment advice. If any of the concepts discussed here appeal to you, then you must do the work to decide if and when and how you should invest. The Optimist does not ask for any profits you make, and he cannot be liable for any losses incurred as a result of your investment decisions. The Optimist wishes you the best of luck in whatever you decide to do or not to do. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of David W. Tice & Associates, LLC. The opinions are subject to change, are not guaranteed and should not be considered recommendations to buy or sell any security. prudentbear.com

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (71942)	7/1/2006 3:31:27 AM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 360941

They have managed, unbelievably, with the tremendous aid of OBL to frighten Congress, the corporate media, DLC Dems and a whole host of other Americans into utter idiocy. Listening to John Yu on Charlie Rose tonight, it's astonishing the arguments that he peddles with a straight face. It's pure evil: 1. The Prez should have extraordinary powers during times of war. 2. The Prez declares a war on terrorism. 3. The war on terrorism will never end. UNBLOOMINGBELIEVABLE. There is no war on terrorism, John Yu never knows what he's talking about and doesn't listen to those who do know what they're talking about (Lawrence Tribe basically said that to him tonight) and the administration is trashing the US Constitution. What in the world do our representatives do in Washington everyday if not whack this administration and its toadies upside the head?

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (71942)	7/1/2006 11:18:27 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 360941

Chinese Oil Demand is Surging A spate of stories in the last few weeks told the remarkable tale. China's business newspaper The Standard notes Oil demand growth accelerates to 13.5%. Apparent oil demand leapt 13.5 percent last month from the year-ago level to 6.5 million barrels per day, according to calculations based on official data. That was the fastest rate since 2004, when overall demand grew around 15 percent, and exceeded last month's 10.8 percent rise as imports of fuel oil surged and gasoline exports slumped, both indicators pointing to increased domestic needs. Some analysts said the figures were also lifted by refiners stockpiling oil in hopes of more profitable sales later. Apparent demand is based on refinery runs plus net product imports, but does not account for changes in inventory levels. This short report will focus on "apparent" oil demand, growing Chinese oil imports, where they come from and what is driving this demand surge. more theoildrum.com